Talk:New South Wales police extradict 'self-healer' Hongchi Xiao from London over death of six-year-old boy at conference

Please check dates, it's 18th in .au but .17th in UK, where Wikinews 'is'. --Gryllida (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Local dates, please. So, the article is fresh until 22, not 21. The problem would be when events happen in the western world, especially for grammy's or academy awards —we are short on a day, because by the time it happens, UTC date changes, plus, the criteria of local time and date pushes us back.
103.254.128.118 (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

As it's already the 18th in UK by now, the above remark is already invalid. The relative dates used in the article are meaningful in both countries, at present. --Gryllida (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It would not matter what was the time in London (where Wikinews is not). We report when the event happened at local time, but the freshness is measured by days per UTC (where Wikinews is)
acagastya PING ME! 01:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Date template at the top follows local time, even if it's another time in UTC? --Gryllida (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Date template uses the date on which it was published, per UTC time.
103.254.128.118 (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4339403 [Not ready]

Revision 4339403 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The Australian source is paywalled. (I don't remember seeing an unpaywalled article in the Australian for some years.) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4339403 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The Australian source is paywalled. (I don't remember seeing an unpaywalled article in the Australian for some years.) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

@Pi zero: [1]; also it opens for free when I open it from Google News (Google News search query). Please let me know whether this is suitable -- I expect not, but think these two facts are worth pointing out just in case.

Otherwise I'll find replacement sources about 12 hours later, as I have outdoors plans for this Saturday. --Gryllida (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Truthfully, I wouldn't be comfortable with those solutions. The whole bypassing-paywall thing is ethically grey. --Pi zero (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

OK.

(It'd be nice if I could know that the article is paywalled at the time of writing the article. If I figure out how to disable Google News's facility of providing its users with 'free' entry to paywalled articles, I'll let you know.)

--Gryllida (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much everything from The Australian and some articles from other News Corp sites (including news.com.au and Herald Sun) are paywalled. Usually, going to the link directly will reveal if it's paywalled though. -- numbermaniac 12:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4339933 [Passed]

Revision 4339933 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4339933 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Extradict or extradite?

Is the spelling "extradict" correct? I had always thought it was "extradite" and I haven't yet found much by way of sources to support the -ict spelling. But it may be a legal variant or a local spelling or something? I'd be interested to see if editors can perhaps check/confirm please. Thanks 171.33.194.62 (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Should definitely be "extradite." --Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)